Why do people call it "tribes" when it refers to Africa, and "Regions" when it is Europe? It is the same concept after all.Whatever you call it, it IS at the core of African problems. The solution points to a true Africa Union, as in Europe, which dissolves the sovereignity of artificial African nations.I will keep dreaming.

To understand African tribalism, like tribalisms elsewhere, consider it as like other behavior patterns among animals a response to environmental pressures. Take xenophobia, an important ingredient of the tribal stew: what do you get when you're very friendly with strangers? Disease. Especially in tropical regions, natural selection favored those groups wary of others and able to substantially isolate themselves from other groups of their species who often are such excellent hosts for a wide array of organisms always mutating toward newer forms of often-lethal corporeal corruption.Adaptations so successful do not simply go away when confronted by an ideology proclaiming its superiority. Generations of tribal warfare in France and England lessened only after one tribe, Franks in France, Saxons then Normans in England, established and maintained hegemony.Nor should it surprise us that those at the top of the social hierarchy should take more, eat more. Consider Henry VIII and Louis XIV. Anyone who has had a number of cats or dogs knows that.But there is that which has been called a part of nature which seeks to rise above nature: culture, civilization. A basic ingredient of that has been the notion that no matter how Big you are, there are higher powers, there's at least one bigger Big One up there. Consider Gilgamensh: in Sumerian his title meant Big Man, and he did what he wanted when he wanted until the Gods chose to correct him. Much of Africa has not yet had a Moses who could denounce Pharaoh in the name of the greater power. Mandela was able to do it successfully, but against a Pharaoh from a non-indigenos tradition.

State-making,they say,is like war-making;They are both forms of organized crime.Every leader surrounds himself with those that most certainly lead him to victory, and who cares if they all come from the same family!Ruling on ethnic lines in Kenya is neither new,nor is it as inherently dangerous as this writer implies!Kibaki and Githongo are both Kikuyus(I suppose)but was there anything dangerous in the former appointing the latter as ani-corruption Tsar? Of course not,he had all it takes to do a nice job!!That also,is ruling along ethnic lines!

A thought that occurred to me whilst reading this article was the degree to which a country's population's ability to co-operate is positively correlated to its development and growth and non-co-operation with corruption and stagnation. The experiences of Kenya appear show that where the population is divided into very distinct groupings and allegiance is to the tribe rather than to the nation, corruption is almost inevitable. Could it be the case that the greater the number of "tribes" the greater the propensity for corruption? My current location, Bolivia, is another example of a country where the population is divided into two main ethnic groupings and where co-operation is non-existent in the political system and corruption has been used a mechanism of repression of one group over the other. It also seems logical that any strong form of cultural difference may also inhibit one's ability to co-operate with other members of society, fundamentalist religion perhaps being the most obvious example. If it is the case that a strong national identity and cultural homogeneity are an important factors in a country's ability to grow, it may explain why the task of development is so difficult. As far as I am aware, there are no serious development programs that focus on breaking down these racial and cultural barriers. Indeed, it may be an almost impossible task.

Having read John Perkin's "The Confessions of An Economic Hit Man" I cannot say that its any western can criticize Africans because of corruption, since they are the authors. The only difference between the corrupt Kenyans leaders, and the corrupt leaders of the west is that Kenyan or African Leaders, steal rather crudely. They have no manners, so to speak. Western leaders steal cleanly, but its steal theft. Mr. Githongo did what every honest and patriotic man would do. But then again, having come back to Kenya, and having changed his position from dealing with the corrupt ruthlessly, to negotiating with them, It could only be as a result of encountering far worse form of corruption in the big capitals of the world. Corruption is the engine of capitalistic. Its only frowned upon, when one is stealing from his own, and openly. Its not that I support this kind corrupt African governments. Corruption is a reality in the world. The book, "Its our time to eat" will be a good read, and will make Angela Wrong rich. But the exposure of Kenya corruption will not end just because of the exposure. In my view , the rampant corruption in all democratic countries will result in the demise of extreme capitalism. This change may come smoothly as its happening in America and Western Europe, but it may also come violently as the case with Kenya. This change will be brought by the people themselves, since the current crop of leadership, all over the world, has been schooled from the Economic school of extreme capitalism. The term "Its our turn to eat" may look ugly, but its only ugly because its a crude African leadership doing the eating. But this eating is going on everywhere. And the just deserts will come unto these eaters, in due time. In the mean time, Angela's book entertains the naive, the holier-than-thous, and the curious academicians. Its just a kind of "Harry Potter" series, for all the impact it will make, locally or internationally.

Githongo's report also contained the names of many promininent international facilitators, none of whom have ever been particularly charged, or even "censured". Which is to say that a large part of gross corruption is a kind of standard "off-the-books" operation, known fully well among all the governments and covert operatives in the capitalist world. This money is all going somewhere, and the governments of all these countries usually "do not co-operate," and John Githongo will be the first to confirm this.

This is true in every country, including the United States, where the extent of financial corruption has actually yet to be fully uncovered, and where both Madoff and Stanford are free men as we speak, while hundreds of billions are "missing."

I do think it may be valid that the last elections in Kenya, yielded two governments, and not just one. But this was in large part due to the fact that certain international interference was involved in Raila Odiinga's agreement to this current arrangement, when he had in fact won the election. Still, his leadership as Prime Minister in the face of enormous budgetary constraints and impositions, with a massive government, as you have noted has been impressive. And he has already embarked on a comprehensive plan to reform the juduciary with Martha Karua.

Now each of the two big tribes in Kenya are each competing for resoures, with the full mandate to do so. Which is an improvement over the siuation before, when the "grab" was decidely one-sided. Now there is a chaotic, but even opportunity.

So this financial meltdown, with corruption added to the mix is to be expected. It is happening in the United States, and putting it on "tribalism" may be "convenient" and it may even be "insightful" , but it may also be quite irrelevant, which is more likely, given the anecdotal U.S. evidence, where there is significantly more corruption at this moment in gross dollar sums, while there are no tribes at all.

Just as much as their imperial predecessors, policies and practices adopted by the government in the post-colonial period have also contributed to Kenya's political and economic malaise. Instead of building legal-rational institutions to carry out duties of the state, leaders in Africa distribute offices as patronage among relatives, friends and clients. Consequently, all the officials have to demonstrate personal loyalty to the leader in order to maintain their posts. In this respect, clients are retainers tied to their benefactor, rather than salaried officials serving the government institutions in which they are employed. Loyalty to the leader brings rewards. The rules of the game changed overnight to serve their own interests. Civil society, for its part, never really engaged the state. Where advantageous to do so, citizens by-passed state authority. As a result, tribalism in Africa has become the most efficient method for ordinary citizens to securing wells, medical centres, schools and roads. Colonial authorities were busy assigning Africans to "tribes" while people were and are building "tribes" to belong to for the sake of survival.

Ngari and JoeFitzpatrick are right. The way out is to build strong institutions. Even the US success alluded to below is a factor of strong institutions rather than capitalism. The strength of the institutions creates an environment where capitalism can thrive since individuals can rely on a relatively strong institutions to safeguard them. Where the institutions fail, society resorts to racial, ethnic and other divisions to find an alternative support structure. The current economic crisis is a case in point where racial attacks are on the rise, just like the claims of rigging created the sense that institutions had failed and the next support structure was ethnic.

Redrawing national boundaries solves nothing. Inevitably the strongest force the weakest to poorest regions while keep the best for themselves. In many cases the strongest isn't even the most numerous, or those that have the best claim but the best organized and armed (witness the Rwanda - DRC conflict). Besides in the 1960's certain areas did try to break free, (Biafra, Katanga) and they were brought back into the fold after prolonged and bloody struggles. No simply telling them to redraw the borders will end the greatest bloodshed of all.

Seriously, if your loyalties don't lie with the nations you proclaim to belong to, why don't you split most African countries into tribal federations? That way each tribe could only take what was theirs. Sure country boundaries were drawn by greedy Europeans but since you are now independent countries, your destinies are in your hands and on them alone. As for international pressures, sorry honey, we all have to deal with those.I tend to gravitate more and more towards the idea that Africa's problem is not a lack of money, resources or food. Its the lack of Africans wanting to build nations. No amount of aid will change anything until people make a decision as to what they want to be, and do it. In the end, we all have horrible stories and perfectly good reasons to fail. What matters is what you do about it. We are all masters of our own destiny, whether we acknowledge it or not.

Ngari, Are not Somalis divided into many clan groupings? Although they may share a similar culture, it appears that clan divisions breed corruption in the political system. The US, on the other hand, may be made up of many different ethnic groups, but they share a strong national identity and the same desire to get ahead as individuals rather than groups. Western consumer capitalism may not be such a bad thing after all?

Corruption created Africa,at the partition of Africa in Berlin,in 1884,european powers corruptly slicing their "booty"(a continent) among themselves.African states were created specifically for economic plunder,of natural resources,cheap/forced labour and to enrich their populations at the expense of African people.These countries were created without consultation with the original nations that existed before, and lumped together into colonies,and splitting others. In Kenya for instance,the colonial"tribe",for over 70 years,made themselves rich with no regard for the other people who also lived there.The powers ,e.g the british, benefited from the slave trade,slavery,plunder of the Indian subcontinent and Ireland,taxation of the entire Empire. The Kikuyu elite led by Kenyatta inherited a state created for the sole purpose of making one nation richer over the other.After the british colonial nation,it was the turn of the Kikuyu nation to plunder,and passed on to Mr.Moi's nation to plunder and then back to the Kikuyu nation.And after everyone's turn,they then protect each other with their wealth.All the proceeds seem to go back to the same place,the capitals of colonial powers,from Paris to London.The western countries then create too much bureaucracy,to stop the cash from being repatriated back. Githongo's work was made tough by serving an old people's government,who still have a colonial mentality and look at loyalty in a tribal angle,a duty to the tribe,and are very difficult to change. The younger generation have lost their tribal loyalty,but corruption will go on,not along tribal or racial lines,but on class and social status. It is the same everywhere,from South Africa,Zimbabwe,Kenya the story is similar. It is good to look at the historical context of corruption instead of the ''good'' westerners complaining about an African problem that everyone has participated in.Only a change of attitude will end corruption.

It seems that Kenyans prefer to pursue the agenda of their own tribes than that of the nation. This is similar in other Africsn countries and it makes me wonder, why then bother to belong a country. Africans don't have to stick to the colonial ways, after all some countires never existed before the British came and created them. So why not just break apart agian and return to the pre-colonial ways of government. If know one can be bothered to set aside tribal and ethnic differences for the good of thier country.

There is one aspect in corruption almost all people I ever talked to (and who were born in truly democratic places) have certain difficulty to realize - in countries where corruption is endemic, corruption itself is not perceived as something wrong. Rather, it perceived as simply a part of life. Very often it does not even have any emotional tint, it can be as usual as say arranged marriage or the custom to pay for bride by number of sheep (things unbelievable in the West). Forget about law books - that perception ingrained much deeper and will override any even nicely outlined anti-corruption acts.There is no question that corruption is bad for society as whole and for its economy in particular. To stop or even defeat corruption can possibly be archived by only changing people's attitude towards it. The first step is to make it shameful act as least. But how to do that? It does not seems an easy task. Maybe exposing younger generation to democratic values could work, but it is extremely expensive process.On the other note, hearing about corruption as a form of inter tribal standoff, makes me recollect stories by Jared Diamond about his experience in highlands of Papua New Guinea. Those societies, many of which existed until recently in virtually stone age, were locked in constant and very violent struggle with each other. There is a probability that pretty much all humankind was in such state before history began. Then, with tribal identities getting dissolved, that struggle eased or was replaced by the struggle between nations. Dissolving of those tribal identities don't go with the same speed everywhere, in some places it is still a very strong factor. In other places, where it is not a case anymore, corruption is less endemic (there are exceptions though). That would mean, theoretically at least, that if tribal identities of people of Kenya (or any other country) are less acute, the corruption would get less of the evil. The question though is whether or not it is possible to get rid of corruption and save unique culture of each Kenyan tribe at the same time.

Much of michelas book is true,Kenya is a country going downhill,Corruption has indeed become the greatest existing threat ..It has to be dealt with now..Please read and comment http://madmoran.blogpost.com/